you mean that post where you gave us some partisan hitjobs and a piece that actually supports the claim that there is a wage gap? thanks for that, by the way. spared me the effort of having to do it myself.

you are still missing the point about "fair treatment of men and women in custody hearings." did i ever say it's fair? no. the point is that one of the things that comes with equality is fair treatment of men and women in custody hearings. right now the child typically goes with the mother because of the cultural assumption that a woman would be the best parent for the child. you are saying the complete opposite of that. quit lying. you are so fucking dishonest it's almost laughable.

you are reducing human beings to their biology. and all that aside, it does not touch the fact that we have higher brain functions and we can use them to act differently than animals. "if men would high-tail at the very sign of disinterest from a woman then there would be no romantic relationships" is thus fallacious reasoning. you assume that women would never be interested in romantic relationships themselves, and that is patently false.

"slut shaming" is part of rape culture because it represents a double standard. women get branded sluts for being sexually promiscuous; men get high-fives. hence, a woman's sexuality is denied. once that happens, it is easy to fall into the transaction model of sexual relationships--the one you say you agree is a bad thing. and in that model, if you assume that women have no sex drives of their own, rape becomes simply the process of repossessing goods you think you are owed. and that goes back to, among other things, slut shaming.

the world actually extends beyond what you can see! it's true. therefore, you don't get to use the "if i never see it, it doesn't exist" excuse. try again, grasshopper.

please, continue trying to find evidence of your claims! i look forward to you finding evidence for my claims for me instead.

After i posted those links and you replied it was too late but i pretty much asked myself "so what if the piece was written by an MRA woman activist?"
Does her word count as less just because she doesn't count herself as feminist and is in fact fighting feminism?
Apparently so as you keep labelling anyone who disagrees with you "partisan hitjobs".

I am reducing people to their biology - sex IS biology sorry to burst your feminist dream bubble there.
But for the sake of argument how SHOULD a man approach a woman.
Women are notorious for not giving out a straight" no" in the first place. And even then they admit that "no" may turn into "yes" if courted properly.
So yeah i pretty much am dying to hear your version.

This is an evolutionary result really.
For humanity to survive we have put emphasys on children...as many of them as we could in the past.
Since most died your and the average life span was 28-30 years it made good good sense that people procreate rapidly.
Since the man is required to "impress" (for a lack of a better world ) the female - the courting ritual - something that still exists today, some rules popped up.
Men would have to compete for women - hence them being seen as a prize.
Also due to the difficult nature of obtaining the chance to mate in the past - as women were very selective and chose only the best - a man's "success" with a woman was seen as a sign of great achievement. He had earn it through great effort.
Society still recognizes that today.
Women on the other hand had it quite easy, after all THEY controlled the supply of sex so they only had to spread their legs and get it. Not very hard, not very rewarded either.

Also during our evolutionary stages there was also the dange of being cuckood ( hope i wrote that wright ). No man wants to care for someone else's children. He wants to make sure they are his own.
Now for a woman this is easy - she know the kids are definitely hers. But for him not so much.
That's why women who slept around were seen throughout history as "valued" less.
Nowadays we've moved from this kind of thinking. Women are allowed some sort of freedom but evolutionary psychology cannot be denied just like that...even by humans.
A woman whose number is double her age raises suspicious eyebrows and no amount of complaining "men do it so women should too" is going to change that. You know why?
That's riiiiight, because women and men are DIFFERENT and people have different expectations from one another.
The more you take out from the offer you put on the table in a relationship, the less likely your potential mate is likely to commit or even tick around and try.
"She slept with 100 guys before me, why the hell should i be chump 101?" - this question innevitably pops-up to every guy.
Yes it is a double standard that does not favor women, agreed.
Life isn't fair unfortunately, it is as it is. And we either take it as it is, or try and change it and in the process ruin everything - like you people are trying to do.

Go ahead, try to change society...in the end you will realize it is impossible. It is hardwired in our brains.
We don't like infidelity. And no amount of "freedom" and "equality" groups are going to make a difference. People will nod in agrement due to social pressure and in their mind say "fuck you" and opt-out the mating game.
The USA's marriage and divorce statistics is proof enough of that.
http://www.prb.org/images10/usyoungadultmarriage.gif

Also i find your attempt at connecting slut shaming with rape laughable.
Sure i may think a woman who sleeps around with everything with a penis is pretty sad and below me - that doesn't mean i go and RAPE her to..uhh..what? " reposses goods i think i are owed".
Whaaaaat?
Wow..y..you really need to stop drinking the kool-aid O.o

No, if i consider a woman below my standards...i....don't want anything to do with her?
Why the HELL would i get involved with her in the first place if said i don't like her? I find your sad attempts at painting me like a guy who thinks with his dick rather than his head - flash news kido, i'm past puberty, i'm not controlled by my emotions and - unlike you - i still think rationally.

ah, crayven, back again to bray about how much you hate women. well, here we go again. feel free to provide some more links that prove me right! that was pretty cool. very thoughtful of you.

i don't see what you're trying to prove by saying that one of your writers is an "MRA woman." that doesn't stop her from being wrong.

you say that "sex is biology," but we aren't simply talking about just sex, so i'm not sure what the point of that was.

you say "women are notorious for not giving out a straight no" in the first place. well, what do you do? you take it at face value and leave her alone. if she was actually interested in you, she'd go after you. this is actually quite liberating, because once she says "no" and you take her at her word, it's actually completely out of your hands and you don't have to interpret anything else! you'd think this would be right up your alley or something.

it's also great because it means you get to stop pursuing people who aren't interested in you and people who aren't interested in you get to stop being pursued by a creep who has no respect for them. so everyone wins!

you say this is a result of evolution, but, really, that doesn't make any sense. evolution favors those things which make you more capable of successfully reproducing. a convoluted system of masked intentions really doesn't make it easier to reproduce, especially when you throw in the fact that we are not mindless beasts dancing on the strings of our biology, we also have morals and society and culture and ethics and stuff.

and then you go on a tangent that ultimately ends in "yes it's not fair but if we change it it'll ruin everything," which is the exact same argument used by the people who defended all those separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks. the fact is, society certainly does change, as a result of people and their efforts. unless you would like to tell me that South Africa is as racist and segregated as it was during apartheid, Japan is still a bloodthirsty empire, Germany of 2012 is no different than Germany of 1939, Belgium is still in the business of chopping people's hands off in the Congo, the US is still a half-slave society, and so on.

but then, you can't actually tell me that--at least, not without being shamelessly dishonest--because you yourself have already pointed out all the various laws regarding equal rights for women that have been passed, and you yourself have been unsuccessfully trying to argue that the wage gap doesn't exist and women are already equal with men--meaning at some point, society must have been changed, and thus, you must be wrong. good job contradicting yourself there!

so you're once again arguing only with the voices in your head. nobody here has said anything--anything--about infidelity. not even the Imaginary Feminism against which you ineffectually rail says anything about it. so i'm not sure what your graph is supposed to prove.

obviously you didn't even try to understand how slut shaming is connected to rape. that's okay. i figured you wouldn't. your misogyny is so strong we probably have to explain to you why rape is bad before we can get to that.

so...yeah, you really do think with your dick. you do, at least. you claim to do so as an excuse for your rampant misogyny. but, see, fun fact: i'm not saying that that's inevitable! what i'm actually saying is that you can be better than that. because, in fact, there are quite a few men who do have basic respect for women, and obviously you're not one of them. but you could be!

of course, you don't want to be better than that, and really the only solution is to hope that you don't reproduce (and if you did, hope your children are better people than you) so that you can just die and take your bigotry with you. that's generally how these victories for equality and social justice are cemented.

and of course, let us not forget, if there is anyone here who is being irrational, it is you.

now then! let's see what new helpless noises you make, and how many of them wind up proving me right.

It's good to see you pretty much ended with nothing else to say except, "Yeah biology dictates it so. Life's not fair. Sorry." So in the end, you do feel women aren't deserving to be equal in everything, and that's just life, genetics and ingrained in us.

Quote:

I am reducing people to their biology - sex IS biology sorry to burst your feminist dream bubble there.
But for the sake of argument how SHOULD a man approach a woman.
Women are notorious for not giving out a straight" no" in the first place. And even then they admit that "no" may turn into "yes" if courted properly.

I approached the girl I'm married to without trying to hit on her, had a lot of fun as friends for awhile, asked her out and wow, what an awesome relationship. It's pretty ideal and perfect. I'm sorry you seem to think women just shoot down people. But if they shoot you down, just harassing them isn't going to cut it. Sure people might have a chance later in a relationship if they're friends to ask again, but that doesn't mean, if she says no, just keep bugging the girl. But you're saying because people can play coy sometimes, you shouldn't accept it when a woman tells you no, she's not interested.

You can continue to throw your garbage out and spew nonsense, but somehow I just don't care. Never have really. I'm happy with where I am in life and how I treat other people. You seem to be the one angry with the world. Maybe you should work on figuring out why it is you have such a huge chip on your shoulders and are so unhappy you feel the need to come in and randomly bash people and deem everyone in a group bad JUST because they're part of the group._________________ My Art

The fact that feminists say one thing and do another is pretty much proof of similar tactics.

in trying to tie feminists to the Ku Klux Klan (yes he tried to tie feminists to the Ku Klux Klan, the white-hoods-burning-cross-lynchings-vast-control-of-the-South-for-decades guys)

so if "say one thing and do another" is proof that you're "similar" to the KKK, then that presents our craven little friend here with an interesting conundrum!

because, you see, earlier he said this

Quote:

Sex isn't dependent on anything but volition - of both partners. Including money is...pathetic at best ( not saying prostitution should be criminalized like it is now but it's really pathetic for people to resort to it ).

and agreed with me that this transactional model of sexual relationships is stupid and harmful.

but!

then he says this

Quote:

Also due to the difficult nature of obtaining the chance to mate in the past - as women were very selective and chose only the best - a man's "success" with a woman was seen as a sign of great achievement. He had earn it through great effort.
Society still recognizes that today.
Women on the other hand had it quite easy, after all THEY controlled the supply of sex so they only had to spread their legs and get it. Not very hard, not very rewarded either.

and concludes that

Quote:

Life isn't fair unfortunately, it is as it is. And we either take it as it is, or try and change it and in the process ruin everything - like you people are trying to do.

yet keen-eyed viewers at home will notice that he's now contradicting himself! why, this would seem to be...hypocrisy! he criticizes the transactional model of sexual relationships, and then he defends it!

now, according to craven logic, if you "say one thing and do another" you are comparable to the Klan. well, here's our craven friend, saying one thing and doing another: that is, saying that the transactional model of sexual relationships is bad, and then defending it.

ERGO IPSO FACTO E PLURIBUS UNUM* crayven is comparable to the Klan!

CHECKMATE

*yes i know it doesn't actually work because crayven's logic is completely pants on head insane and also not logic at all but let me have my fun

Thank you for the english lesson i did not know that - the name originate from somewhere else though , notice the "y'.

ShadowCell wrote:

ah, crayven, back again to bray about how much you hate women. well, here we go again. feel free to provide some more links that prove me right! that was pretty cool. very thoughtful of you.

Yeah...i actually made it simple for you - maybe this time you will actually bother to read something instead of turning on the patronizing speech and babble on.

Oh who am i kidding...

ShadowCell wrote:

you say "women are notorious for not giving out a straight no" in the first place. well, what do you do? you take it at face value and leave her alone. if she was actually interested in you, she'd go after you. this is actually quite liberating, because once she says "no" and you take her at her word, it's actually completely out of your hands and you don't have to interpret anything else! you'd think this would be right up your alley or something.

You need to get out of the house more...that's all i got to say to this comment really

ShadowCell wrote:

you say this is a result of evolution, but, really, that doesn't make any sense. evolution favors those things which make you more capable of successfully reproducing. a convoluted system of masked intentions really doesn't make it easier to reproduce, especially when you throw in the fact that we are not mindless beasts dancing on the strings of our biology, we also have morals and society and culture and ethics and stuff.

Partially correct.Evolution also chooses the best genes to be transmited to the next generation - this is done the hard way ( lower quality gene carrying individuals DIE ) or through selective mating. It is the reason women are looking for handsome , strong, funny guys.
These are hard-wired into their brains as "quality".
Men on the other hand do the same. I have read somewhere ( and i'll try find it as it was quite an interesting read ) that men asses their potential mate's health status by oggling her for 5 second - subconsciously.
Body type, weight, proportions, face symmetry - all these add + or - to a mate's rating. And she ranks up the scale the more qualities she/he ranks up.
Sex IS mechanical, the impulse to have it IS automated you don't suddenly decide "hey i got this thing between my legs let's see what it does".
No, your brain is hard-wired ALREADY to know what it does. You don't need to consciously know what it does, your brain does.

I'm not really going to stop you - i don't have that capacity or even the will to if i had. Better to leave you to bang your heads to the ceiling by yourselves like children.
I just have to sit and watch and eventually give out warning that what you're doing is not only wrong but also quite pointless.

ShadowCell wrote:

Japan is still a bloodthirsty empire, Germany of 2012 is no different than Germany of 1939, Belgium is still in the business of chopping people's hands off in the Congo, the US is still a half-slave society, and so on.

And with that statement you earn the diploma of bat shit insane - congratulations.

I never said the 'wage gap" NEVER existed.I said it is a non-issue NOW, in our modern days.
Do you actually READ comments or just see my name and start writing random stuff?

ShadowCell wrote:

your misogyny is so strong we probably have to explain to you why rape is bad before we can get to that.

*facepalm*
For the last time, i seem to be talking to walls here.
YES rape is wrong. I agree on that - any normal human being would.
Do you understand?
IS this clear enough for you?
Let me repeat myself because in your desperate attempts to paint me into something i am not you keep pushing the "you don't think rape is bad" which i did not say. I n fact quite the contrary.
What i DID say is that i find no connection between slut shaming and rape.
IE:
YES a woman who sleeps with every guy might be below my standards - check
Would i rape her to "reposses owed sex" ( as you hilariously put it )? HELL NO, wtf am i insane?
In fact no sane person would...EVER.
So this "rape is connected to slut shaming" is bollocks.

And since you clearly don't want to insult me, let's throw some of that "misogyny" and "you hate women" stuff in there.
Ok fine, my wife would disagree, my mother and grandmother would disagree, the women at work would disagree, but hey we got the specialist from California here so who am i to argue.
Your whole argument is based on the (imaginary ) fact that i claim rape is ok which is....uhm..imaginary.
So there's no point in me dismantling this any further.

Following up totally non-insulting comments:
hope you die
hope you don't reproduce
you bigot
and my personal favorite

ShadowCell wrote:

you can just die and take your bigotry with you. that's generally how these victories for equality and social justice are cemented.

It's good to see you pretty much ended with nothing else to say except, "Yeah biology dictates it so. Life's not fair. Sorry." So in the end, you do feel women aren't deserving to be equal in everything, and that's just life, genetics and ingrained in us.

Human rights are what we can change - societal acceptance and arbitrary values.
Biology is out of our hands, unless we change the DNA structure i guess.
A homosexual man will NOT love a woman no matter how much society tells him he should.

Adyon wrote:

I approached the girl I'm married to without trying to hit on her, had a lot of fun as friends for awhile, asked her out and wow, what an awesome relationship. It's pretty ideal and perfect. I'm sorry you seem to think women just shoot down people. But if they shoot you down, just harassing them isn't going to cut it. Sure people might have a chance later in a relationship if they're friends to ask again, but that doesn't mean, if she says no, just keep bugging the girl. But you're saying because people can play coy sometimes, you shouldn't accept it when a woman tells you no, she's not interested.

If she had said "nah" you would have just gave up and waked away?
I'm saying we can't read minds to see WHEN people play coy. Taking "no" as "NO absolutely no" would mean everyone would a lot more distant.
Also i linked that graph there about marriage - no opinions on it? Nothing?

Adyon wrote:

You can continue to throw your garbage out and spew nonsense, but somehow I just don't care. Never have really. I'm happy with where I am in life and how I treat other people. You seem to be the one angry with the world. Maybe you should work on figuring out why it is you have such a huge chip on your shoulders and are so unhappy you feel the need to come in and randomly bash people and deem everyone in a group bad JUST because they're part of the group.

You're not bad because you're part of the group, the group IS bad, period.
You just decided to buy into this nonsense.
Also if you don't "care and never did" why the hell do you keep replying ?

if you don't take it at face value when a woman says no to you, then obviously you don't respect her--because if you did, you would assume that if she says no, she means it and is capable of deciding for herself whether or not she wants to have sex with you, and you'd leave it at that. and so if you leave her alone and she is interested in you, it's up to her to pursue her. if she doesn't, well, that's her fault--besides which, someone who expects you to just read her mind is probably not worth associating with anyways.

this isn't even feminism, really, it's more like "avoiding unnecessary anxiety and drama in romance." the more you continue on this tangent, the more evidence you supply me to say that you're a misogynist. it's great.

see, you learn these things by getting out of the house and actually talking to people.

your tangent about evolution doesn't actually touch any point i made. you still act as though we don't have other factors at play, like social mores and ethics, that influence our sexual behavior. if you think sex is just a mechanical matter of pursuing females in heat, well,

Quote:

You need to get out of the house more...that's all i got to say to this comment really

you have quite frequently said that the wage gap doesn't exist. "wage gap is a myth" ring a bell? don't be lying, now.

you haven't actually argued that rape is not connected to slut shaming, you've just rejected it, as an article of faith or something, like you've got some kind of "religion" going on there or something. surely if it's bollocks you can show that it's bollocks.

yes, i am looking forward to a world without people like you. every time humanity has made any progress towards a better civilization, it was in spite of people like you saying "it's impossible, life is unfair and that's how it is, it's biology, it's the way things are meant to be." people like you defended slavery, people like you defended inhumane working conditions, people like you insisted women shouldn't have the right to vote, people like you spoke up for imperialism and exploitation of other countries, people like you spoke up for apartheid, and now here you are speaking up for a sexist, oppressive society.

The fact that feminists say one thing and do another is pretty much proof of similar tactics.

in trying to tie feminists to the Ku Klux Klan (yes he tried to tie feminists to the Ku Klux Klan, the white-hoods-burning-cross-lynchings-vast-control-of-the-South-for-decades guys)

so if "say one thing and do another" is proof that you're "similar" to the KKK, then that presents our craven little friend here with an interesting conundrum!

because, you see, earlier he said this

Quote:

Sex isn't dependent on anything but volition - of both partners. Including money is...pathetic at best ( not saying prostitution should be criminalized like it is now but it's really pathetic for people to resort to it ).

and agreed with me that this transactional model of sexual relationships is stupid and harmful.

but!

then he says this

Quote:

Also due to the difficult nature of obtaining the chance to mate in the past - as women were very selective and chose only the best - a man's "success" with a woman was seen as a sign of great achievement. He had earn it through great effort.
Society still recognizes that today.
Women on the other hand had it quite easy, after all THEY controlled the supply of sex so they only had to spread their legs and get it. Not very hard, not very rewarded either.

and concludes that

Quote:

Life isn't fair unfortunately, it is as it is. And we either take it as it is, or try and change it and in the process ruin everything - like you people are trying to do.

yet keen-eyed viewers at home will notice that he's now contradicting himself! why, this would seem to be...hypocrisy! he criticizes the transactional model of sexual relationships, and then he defends it!

now, according to craven logic, if you "say one thing and do another" you are comparable to the Klan. well, here's our craven friend, saying one thing and doing another: that is, saying that the transactional model of sexual relationships is bad, and then defending it.

ERGO IPSO FACTO E PLURIBUS UNUM* crayven is comparable to the Klan!

fun

1. I am okay for women to sleep with whoever they want, including prostitution. I don't agree with it but it is not my CHOICE to make.
2. Promiscuous women will be looked down upon and i gave my explanation why.
How am i contradicting myself?
I said the transactional model of sex IS stupid NOT harmful.
It is stupid for personal reasons - some would find no problem in it.
It is NOT harmful as long as it is consensual, they don't call it the world's oldest profession for nothing.

yes, i am looking forward to a world without people like you. every time humanity has made any progress towards a better civilization, it was in spite of people like you saying "it's impossible, life is unfair and that's how it is, it's biology, it's the way things are meant to be." people like you defended slavery, people like you defended inhumane working conditions, people like you insisted women shouldn't have the right to vote, people like you spoke up for imperialism and exploitation of other countries, people like you spoke up for apartheid, and now here you are speaking up for a sexist, oppressive society.